The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

Friday, September 27, 2013

Read the article in the original עברית Read the article in Italiano (translated by Yehudit Weisz, edited by Angelo Pezzana)Read the article en Español (translated by Shula Hamilton)

During the years of Mubarak's rule, he had only three true supporters: his wife
Suzanne and his sons Gamal and Alaa. All of the other figures that surrounded
Mubarak were politicians and sycophants who took advantage of their proximity
to the president to extract favors as long as he was able to grant them. The
moment that they felt that he was weak, they abandoned him to the fate of dismissal
and the defendant's cage. In contrast, in Mursi's case there were, and still
are, tens of millions of supporters who are ready at a moment's notice to fight
to the end, in order to return him to power. This is the reason for the contrast between
the ease with which Mubarak was taken down and the difficulties that the army
has been experiencing in its attempts to stabilize the state since Mursi was
thrown out of office about three months ago, at the beginning of July of this
year (2013).
The most important and sensitive indicator of the current state of political
stability is what is happening in the educational system: If the schools open
on schedule, students go to school as usual and studies in all of the institutions
are conducted normally, it is a sign of a stable state, and a functional government, based on legitimacy and wide public
acceptance. When life is disrupted, the first thing to be harmed is the
educational system because parents don't send their children out into the
streets in a situation that they consider to be dangerous.
The Egyptian school year was supposed to begin these days. But despite the
fact that many of its leaders are behind bars, the Muslim Brotherhood came out
with the rhyming slogan: "La Dirasa wala tadris hata yarga al-Rais" -
"No school and no instruction until the president's return".
The universities are more than just institutions of higher learning, because they
also serve
as a meeting place, a place to express solidarity and a field of
activity for the young guard, the energetic ones of the Muslim
Brotherhood, who are quite aware that after they successfully finish
their academic studies, there
will be several years of searching for work in their field, and many
frustrations and disappointments stemming from the widespread
protectionism
that exists within the Egyptian job market, and certainly within the
governmental job market.
Today, when the average age of marriage has risen to over thirty years
of age because of economic difficulties, the young men and women channel
their
energies, their frustrations and their aggression into the
political channel, in the absence of any other legitimate channel in a
conservative society such as Egypt's. Because of their age and family
status, the pupils and students do not yet need to submit to the need
for bribery and flattery that family heads have to, in order to maintain
their livelihood,
and this allows them to say, and even to shout, truth to power and its
henchmen.
In high schools, colleges and universities throughout Egypt, and
especially
those in indigent and traditional areas, there are many demonstrations
these days. Although these demonstrations are mostly peaceful in
character, they express the emotions of the masses, who are enraged that
the
revolution has led to the downfall of the Muslim Brotherhood. Some of
the
youths are armed, mainly with knives and handguns, and there is high
potential
for violence to break out.
In parallel with the teachers' strike there have been attempts to organize
commercial strikes, but these attempts have failed because many of the
unemployed in Egypt are street vendors who are not unionized, so it is
difficult to get them to cooperate, since their income will suffer.
As of this writing, the UN Economic Council in New York is currently
conducting activities, where Egypt is represented by Nabil Fahmi, the army-appointed Foreign
Minister
in the current military government. This is another reason for ferment
among the supporters of the deposed president, Mursi, and they have
been organizing protest demonstrations in front of UN representatives in
Egypt.
These demonstrations, should they become habitual, might bring about a
violent
response from the army, similar to the violent evacuation of Rabia al-Adawiya Square last month (August, 2013), which cost the lives of dozens of people.A Third Intifada?
These days, the Hamas movement has been trying to reignite the
Palestinian arena by using social networking sites and the active
support of the
al-Jazeera channel. It has already been decided that Friday, the 27th of
September, will be called "Al-Aqsa Friday". The end of September will
mark thirteen years since the second intifada broke out, which was
called the
"Al-Aqsa" Intifada. The current use of this motif is intended to give
the
intifada a religious dimension and the weight of an Islamic obligation
to go to
jihad to free al-Aqsa from the Zionists' grip.
Three factors are currently fanning the flames of the call for intifada:
one is
the competition between the PLO and the government in Ramallah on one
hand, and
Hamas and the government of Gaza on the other. The more one side
progresses in
making peaceful contacts with Israel, the more the other one attempts to
set
the area afire in order to pull the rug out from under the negotiators,
and to negate any possibility of arriving at an agreement that would
leave Israel even
one square centimeter of "Palestine". So paradoxically, it is the
peace negotiations themselves that are actually fueling terrorism and
causing
deaths and injuries, for example the deaths of the two soldiers in
recent days.
Here, we must note that one of them - Tomer Hazan - was killed by an imprisoned
terrorist's brother in order to serve as a bargaining chip to free the imprisoned brother.
Hazan was a victim of the twisted practice of freeing murderers, which is
something that only Israel engages in, of all the countries in the world. If
Israel behaved like the United States, Britain, France or the rest of the
democratic countries and did not negotiate with terrorists about the freeing of
murderers, Israeli soldiers would not be kidnapped to be used as bargaining chips, and Tomer
Hazan would still be among the living.
The dead end that the Hamas government in Gaza finds itself in, also adds to
the desire to shake up the stable system that has consolidated around the Gaza
Strip. Hamas leaders hate the name that the jihadists have given them,
"Mishamer haGaful" ("Border Patrol"), as if they are the
guarding Israel's borders against the jihadists' operations. Hamas' motivation,
at least in the third intifada also comes from their desire to shake off this name.
The second factor leading toward a third intifada is the situation in the Arab
world, especially in Syria. Potential jihadists see that by waging a stubborn
and determined battle, they can turn a functional state into a torn and splintered country, and can threaten even a strong regime and send a tyrant to the
edge of the abyss, where he must defend himself by the use of chemical weapons. The involvement of jihadists, who came from all parts of the world to take part
in jihad against Asad the infidel, emphasizes the specifically Islamic aspect
of the battle for Syria. The situation in Syria encourages organizations like
Hamas and Islamic Jihad to try to copy the model of the battle in Syria to
Israel as well, not only to get rid of the "Occupation of 1967" but
also to bring to an end to the "Occupation of 1948".
The rage over what has happened in Egypt also worries the
"Palestinian" jihadists, and they are especially angry about the
"act of mass murder" that was carried out - according to them - by
the infidel Egyptian army against their Muslim brothers in the Sinai
Peninsula. The operation in Sinai also has a negative influence on the
state of
Hamas in Gaza, and this is another reason for the increasing rage among
the
"Palestinian" Islamists. The fact that Israel supports the military
regime in Egypt and helps it in its fight against the jihadists of
Sinai, increases the motivation to direct their rage specifically toward
Israel, and
also because that's what exists in the PA as well.
The Third factor that is encouraging people to begin a third intifada is the wave of violence driven by Islamist motivations in many places the world over: the takeover by
"Shabab al-Mujahidin" militias - a branch of al-Qaeda in Somalia - on
the mall in Nairobi, Kenya, which attracted world-wide media attention; the
slaughter that Boko Haram ("the West is Forbidden") carried out in Nigeria
in which about 150 Christians were murdered; the daily massacres in Iraq; the
slaughter in the church in Peshawar, Pakistan; the American failure to depose
Asad, the infidel, despite his use of chemical weapons; the increasing influence on events in the Middle East exerted by the Russians, which itself has
murdered Chechen Muslims, and supports Asad the murderer of Muslims.

In the midst of such an unstable environment, both near and far, the fact that Israel enjoys
peace
and quiet is especially aggravating to the Palestinian Islamists and motivates them to use the same methods that Islamic fighters use, who
currently dictate the agenda of many countries in the world.
Israel must keep its finger on the pulse, and must not sink into the euphoria
of a "house in the jungle" [a peaceful, civilized haven in the midst of a barbaric environment] or of being the "only democracy in
the Middle East". Specifically because it is a democratic, peaceful,
secure country, scrupulous about human rights and political freedoms, these
specific qualities raise the envy and ire of its enemies, and they long very
much to undermine its stability, even if the outcome will leave them in a worse
situation.
Islam raises the flag of the "tzabar" (native Israeli) quality - "patience and the
ability to tolerate difficulties and hardships" - and promises the
suffering Muslim "al-Farj b'ad al-shida" - redemption after the
difficulties. Therefore, even if the third intifada causes a deterioration of
the quality of life, the price is still worth it, because for them, the freeing
of all of Palestine - in the future, in sha Allah - justifies the suffering and the
hardships.
Israelis tend to assess the likelihood for an intifada to break out according to cost and benefit considerations, characteristic of Western societies. These
considerations, as worthy and important as they are, are not always the
considerations of Muslims who live among us and near us.Media Involvement

Al-Jazeera again appears to be
promoting Islamic violence these days, in Egypt and in Israel. Only for comparison:
Egypt occupies only a marginal amount of space in the news of the Arab world
today, and Syria is front and center of media interest. On al-Jazeera - in
contrast - Egypt still occupies a central position, with many reports and
details about the actions of the masses - especially those of the Muslim Brotherhood -
against the military rule. Al-Jazeera gives intensive coverage to the school and
commercial strikes that are currently occurring in some of the cities of Egypt.
This is the reason that the Egyptian regime has closed the offices of
al-Jazeera in that country, and the channel has been forced to base its reports
on rebel videos from video sharing sites such as YouTube. Israel must
consider whether it should do as the Egyptians have, because al-Jazeera's media
jihad is not limited to Egypt, and Israel is a permanent target of jihad.

If
there is any medium that can ignite the spirit of a third intifada, it
is al-Jazeera. Israel must remove jihadist media from its territory
before the entire country is set afire.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar(Mordechai.Kedar@biu.ac.il) is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and
Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the
Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University,
Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political
discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic
arena.

Translated from Hebrew by Sally
Zahav with permission from the author.

Source: The article is published in the framework of the Center
for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan
University, Israel. Also published in Makor Rishon, a Hebrew weekly newspaper.

J
Street, the self-described pro-Israel and pro-peace organization, has
announced on its website that U.S. Vice President Joe Biden will be its
keynote speaker at its annual conference scheduled to commence on
September 28, 2013. Hitherto, President Obama has been unwilling to
authorize his high-ranking officials to participate in the J Street
conferences. However, Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago buddy of Barack Obama,
who now serves as Senior Advisor to Obama and as Assistant to the
president for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, was a
major presenter at J Street’s 2012 conference. The significance of
Biden’s acceptance of the invitation is that it may signal an Obama
administration shift from supporting the traditional Jewish mainstream
positions of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) on Israel
to that of the left-leaning, and openly Democratic Party stalwart J
Street.

Clearly, Barack Obama no longer needs AIPAC to help him win a
presidential election. He does, however, want and need Jewish Democrat
participation in the 2014 Congressional elections in order to take away
the House of Representatives from the Republicans. He would like to
reward Nancy Pelosi with the House Speakership. The preservation of
ObamaCare is particularly important for Obama’s personal legacy.

In the realm of foreign policy, Obama seeks the coveted legacy of
being the peace-maker between Israel and the Palestinians. He is
cognizant that his recent predecessors have all failed in their quest to
bring accommodation, if not peace. Bill Clinton’s Oslo Accords are in a
shambles and Arafat’s September, 2000 intifada saw to that. Israelis
rejected the Oslo Accords twice by electing Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime
Minister. The Palestinians, as well, did not get what they were promised
by Arafat: a collapsed Israel that will give way to an Arab Islamic
Palestine from the River to the Sea. George W. Bush’s Road Map has had
torturous twists and has led to nowhere. Obama has decided that his
approach, which is the same as J Street, would make the difference.

The J Street blog (September 24, 2013) points with pride to President
Obama’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly, suggesting that
Obama adopted J Street’s vision of peace between Israel and the
Palestinians (which Palestinians, Hamas or Fatah?) based on the
two-state solution. J Street stated that it “welcomes
that call and urges other American Jewish organizations to do the
same.” The blog quoted Obama saying, “Friends of Israel, including the
United States, must recognize that Israel’s security as a Jewish and
democratic state depends on the realization of a Palestinian state. And
we should say so clearly.” The President stressed that “Israel’s future
as a democracy and a Jewish homeland depended on reaching peace with
the Palestinians. There’s a growing recognition within Israel that the
occupation of the West Bank is tearing at the democratic fabric of the
Jewish state.”

J Street also welcomed Obama’s pledge to test the “diplomatic path in
an effort to solve the nuclear crisis with Iran peacefully.”

The premise of a Palestinian State J Street shares with President
Obama is naïve, if not erroneous. A Palestinian State at this stage in
history will be an unstable and terrorism-prone state. Israel’s Jewish
character and its vibrant democracy have been sustained now for 46 years
without a Palestinian state. And the demographic boogieman that J
Street and the Israeli-left warned about is far from a reality. Recent
decades, moreover, have witnessed a surge in Jewish demographic growth
and a decline in Arab-Palestinian growth, as the latter become
wealthier, more educated and urbanized.

The U.S. and the West have been testing the “diplomatic path” with
Iran since 2009, and the only result is that it has allowed the radical
Islamic regime to come closer to developing a nuclear bomb.

J Street believes that Israel must return to the June 4, 1967
boundaries, with a few modifications, such as land swaps. In the modern
age of terrorism and missiles, that would be akin to what Abba Eban,
Israel’s legendary Foreign Minister called “Auschwitz borders.” But, J
Street endorsed President Obama’s May 19, 2011 statement. “We believe
the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines
with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are
established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right
to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and
contiguous state.”

J Street supports the division of the holy city, Jerusalem. “Jewish
neighborhoods of Jerusalem would fall under Israeli sovereignty and the
Arab neighborhoods would be under Palestinian sovereignty.” This would
mean that historical and religious Jewish sites will come under
Palestinian control. The Prospects of Jewish access to holy places such
as the Kotel would be fraught with danger from Palestinian shooters.
Moreover, the Cave of the Machpela in Hebron, (burial place of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob) just like Joseph’s tomb in Nablus, would be forbidden
to Jews.

J Street, like Israel’s Peace Now movement, takes the view that the
settlements are an “obstacle to peace.” When Israel agreed to the “Road
Map” in 2003, it agreed to freeze settlement construction on the
condition that the Palestinians would renounce their terrorist tactics
and end the deadly incitement against Jews and Israelis as well as
recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Israelis, therefore, continued to
expand existing settlements as needed to accommodate the “natural
growth” of the inhabitants. There are no legal prohibitions on Israeli
Jews living anywhere in Judea and Samaria. Arabs, after all, live in
Israel, and it would be hypocritical to deny the same rights to Jews,
unless of course you are Saudi Arabia or Jordan, which are legally
“judenrein.”According to J Street:

Continued settlement growth undermines the prospects for peace
by making Palestinians doubt Israeli motives and commitment, and by
complicating the territorial compromises that will be necessary in final
status talks. The arrangements that have been made for the benefit of
settlers and for security – checkpoints, settler-only roads, and the
route of the security barrier – have all made daily life more difficult
for Palestinians, deepening hostility and increasing the odds of
violence and conflict.

Suffice it to say that under the Oslo Accords, Area C, where
virtually all Jewish settlements are located, was designated to be under
both Israeli military and civilian control. Areas A and B are under
Palestinian control. Once the border issues are negotiated, it is more
than likely that significant portions of area C would become part of
Israel.

It is understandable why Obama supports J Street. The latter group
fully supports his vision of an Israeli-Palestinian peace. What is hard
to understand is Biden’s move to please J Street. Biden has been the
most hawkish pro-Israel member of Obama’s team, and a frequent guest of
AIPAC. The Louis Susman factor
is one reason. Susman, one of Obama’s chief campaign-contribution
bundlers, has also been a close friend of Biden. J Street recruited
Susman to be a member of their board and used his influence to bring
Biden to the J Street conference. In considering a run for the U.S.
Presidency, Biden needs people like Susman. But, it could also signal
the Obama administration open shift from supporting the traditional
Jewish mainstream positions of AIPAC on Israel to that of J Street.

Is it because there are verses in
the Qu'ran that can be, and have been, used to justify violence against
non-Muslims? If this is the situation, then it is time for us to lift
our heads out of the sand, and understand that the enemy is within.

The past week has been bloodier than usual in the Muslim world. Three
major attacks in different parts of the world -- Iraq, Pakistan and
Kenya -- have one thing in common: they were pre-meditated terror
attacks on civilians executed in a wanton manner as part of an armed
jihad.

On the attack in Kenya at Nairobi's Westgate Mall, Kenya's President
Uhunu Kenyatta made a clear statement: "We shall hunt down the
perpetrators wherever they run to. We shall get to them and we shall
punish them for this heinous crime. We have overcome terrorist attacks
before. We will defeat them again. They want to cause fear and
despondency in our country, but we will not be cowed." Then, referring
to Somalia's al-Shabab terrorists who claimed responsibility for the
assault, he added, "Terrorism is a philosophy of cowards."

For those of us sitting in North America in the wake of such carnage,
Kenyatta's words resonate well: he addressed the problem head-on. We
look for support to the leader of the free world, the U.S., because the
OIC [Organization of Islamic Cooperation] has let us down by giving
priority to their own agenda on Islamophobia in the West and remaining
silent when Muslims indulge in wanton terrorism -- in fact, they object
to use of the word "terrorist" attached to Muslims. It seems, however,
that the free world has a soft stance on terrorism. The only bold
statement made a while ago was, "we have destroyed Al-Qaeda." Then why
is the U.S. continuing to arm it in Syria?

We have become somewhat immune to the games being played while
innocent lives are lost. One of the games is the instant knee-jerk
reaction of the apologists and conspiracy theorists. How much more
bloodshed and carnage do we have to see and endure before we wake up to
the reality that something dangerous has taken root in the heart of the
Muslims who kill in the name of faith?

There were two other suicide bombings this week. One in Baghdad and the other in Pakistan where a church was bombed.

What is surprising and baffling is that even today we cannot come to
terms with the evidence that we have a serious problem within our ranks.

In Pakistan, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), considered to be
one of the world's largest intelligence agencies, has not contained the
violence unleashed upon Pakistan's minorities. According to some recent
reports, there is a special squad, financed by petrodollars and
sanctioned by the authorities, created exactly for the purpose of
killing minorities -- and this is seemingly why nobody to date has been
brought to justice. Recently there have also been massive jailbreaks,
freeing hundreds of terrorists.

Further, it is rumoured that many shipments of U.S. arms, on their
way from Karachi harbor to Afghanistan, have gone missing. Ironically,
both the escaped terrorists and the arms surfaced in Syria.

So now, my co-religionists, there are some pressing questions we must
ask because our faith as practiced today doesn't embrace humanity,
modernity, music, arts or literature. What we have to see is whether the
reformists, academics and scholars can pull this faith into the 21st century to co-exist with others, or will the militant swords cut the hands that hold the pen?

Furthermore, why is it that, when there is even a single death in the
"conflict in the Middle East," Pakistanis will beat their chests, run
out on the street, and rally with slogans against the USA and Israel --
but do not come out into the streets when their own countrymen massacre
entire families of Christians and destroy churches?

And why is it that there is no voice from the pulpit, and the Sunni
majority does not even bat an eyelash about the death squads against
Shias and the persecution of Ahmedis?

Is it because "Cyber Mullahs," "Hadeeth Hurlers" and "Qu'ran
Thumpers" are invoking their interpretation of the Qu'ran, and insisting
that armed jihad is valid and needed today while we say it is time to
make it obsolete?

Is it because there are verses in the Qu'ran that can be, and have been, used to justify violence against non-Muslims?

If this is the situation, then it is time for us to lift our heads out of the sand, and understand that the enemy is within.

Platitudes about Islam being a faith of peace are not credible
anymore. Islam is only as good as the way its followers practice it; and
if they have created killing fields in the name of Islam, then Islam
will be recognized by the silence of those who did not speak out when
their faith was being massacred to massacre humanity.

The use of weapons of mass
destruction to kill civilians in Syria is merely the preview for the
main event, which, as soon as Iran's nuclear project is completed, will
be, in the name of Allah, the destruction of entire nations --
especially those with oil -- as the Saudis see better than anyone. For
stability in the region, the Iranian bomb must be eliminated -- while it
is still a chicken.

Assad's use of chemical weapons against his own people is both a
catastrophe and a crime against humanity, but also an object lesson for
the West. A chemical weapons attack, Sarin gas if the UN report is
credible, carried out at a time when he felt threatened, illustrates
both how decisions are made in the Middle East and the logic Islamist
leaders use to solve problems and resolve conflicts. It is also an
opportunity for Western leaders, with their tragic difficulty in
understanding Arab and Islamic social and religious norms, to get a
glimpse of what it might cost the people of the free world if mistaken
perceptions lead to serious errors in judgment.

To understand how Assad, considered the Father of the Syrian People,
could kill his own civilians, one has to know that in our part of the
world, an angry Arab father will behead his own daughter, whom he held
as an infant and watched grow up, if she has been accused of immodest or
immoral behavior. He -- or her brothers -- will kill her because she
rebelled, humiliated the family in the eyes of society and tarnished the
family honor -- especially if she has been accused of having premarital
sex.

If a father can act this way toward his daughter, why should the
Father of the Syrian People not do the same thing to his Syrian
children? If the average Arab father can kill his own flesh and blood in
situations of stress or for religious reasons, why would an Arab leader
not use chemical or atomic weapons to destroy the children of his
country, let alone the children of his enemies? As Bashar Assad attacked
his own people, so can the leader of Iran attack Arabs or Israel; that
is the nature of Islamic leaders in the Middle East.

The legacy of the Middle East teaches the individual that there are
situations that demand an instant, violent reaction. Anything related to
loss of face or deterrence of one's enemies demands an immediate
response, or, at the very least, using the first opportunity to take
revenge. The West's patience for the leaders of the Middle East is
interpreted only as weakness.

There is an old Bedouin story about the aged head of a Bedouin clan
who lived in the desert. In preparation for Eid al-Fitr, the holiday
that ends the Muslim religious month of Ramadan, the old man personally
fattened a chicken and spent his time thinking about eating it. But when
the chicken was to be killed and cooked, it was nowhere to be found --
someone had stolen it. The old man assembled his sons and ordered them
to find the chicken and punish the thieves.

The sons brought their father a different chicken, larger and fatter
than the one that was missing. "No," he said, "I want my chicken." The
following night, his daughter was kidnapped and raped. He called his
sons to him and again demanded the chicken. "Father," they said, "our
sister was kidnapped and raped, and you are asking for that chicken?"
"Yes," he said, "I want my chicken." The following night, their tent
was burned down. "You see?" he said to his sons. "If you had brought me
my chicken, your sister would not have been raped and our home would not
have been burned down!"

Lack of moral fiber lies behind corruption and depravity all over the
world. But in the Middle East, Arabs and Muslims also manipulate and
interpret Islam to suit their own agendas. For decades Qur'an verses and
religious traditions have been the raw material from which Islamic
sheikhs manufacture theories, often issued as fatwas [religious
edicts] to: incite and support terrorist attacks, murder civilians,
assassinate moderate leaders, plunder and destroy -- all in the name of
Islam.

There are fatwas enabling Muslims to use weapons of mass
destruction; they say that was what Allah did to Pharaoh and the
Egyptians, and what Muhammad did when he used projectiles as weapons of
mass destruction when attacking the city of Ta'if.

Men, such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who say they want to kill every Jew and "infidel" on earth, use the hadiths
[the Islamic oral tradition] to justify attacks as we have seen in
Pakistan, Iraq and Kenya this week. Anyone who wants to attack
Christians, and loot and burn their churches, will use a hadith to justify his actions. And hadiths
are used to justify the murder of Jews on the grounds that they are
treacherous, enemies of Allah, and the descendants of monkeys and pigs.
According to the hadiths, even if a Jew hides behind a rock, the
rock will speak and reveal him. Misinterpretations of the Islamic
tradition have turned it into a weapon that can be used for any
enterprise, all in the name of Allah.

During the recent upheaval in Egypt, this double standard could be
seen in the arguments between Sheikh Qaradawi, the senior religious
authority for the Muslim Brotherhood, and Sheikh Muhammad al-Tayyeb, the
Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University.

Sheikh Qaradawi, supported by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, claimed that al-Tayyeb was not a genuine sheikh but an idiot
and a faker, appointed by the Egyptian army, despite his lack of
knowledge of Islam, to provide a religious cover for the Egyptian army
against the regime of President Muhamed Morsi. Al-Tayyeb and a cadre of
sheikhs had quoted a hadith to convince Egyptians not to participate in demonstrations, and to give religious support to the soldiers and police.

According to his enemy, Sheikh Qaradawi, however, Sheikh al-Tayyeb,
had justifed the army's "slaughter" of demonstrators. Sheikh Qaradawi
claimed the head of the army, General Sisi, and all his supporters were
infidels according to the Sharia [Muslim religious law], for
having raised their hands against the "legitimate Islamic regime" of
Muhamed Morsi, who had been elected according to Sharia law.

That argument is an example of how for decades the religion of Allah
has become a tool in the hands of sheikhs and other Muslim leaders
responsible for the deaths of innocents.

Unfortunately, there is the same kind of amorality and hypocrisy in
the rhetoric of Western leaders when they relate to the Arab-Muslim
world. All of them, the U.S. included, have so far turned a blind eye to
the Assad regime's murder of more than 100,000 Syrian civilians and the
forced exile of more than two million. But when the Syrian regime used
chemical weapons to kill 1,400 civilians of all ages in Ghouta near
Damascus, the hypocritical leaders of the Western world suddenly called
for action against Syria. What difference does it matter what kind of
weapon of mass destruction is used? Where were the moralists until now?

Examples of the world's apathy and hypocrisy are legion, most based
on personal and national interest. People who ignore and are unaffected
by murders carried out far from home seem not to believe that they, too,
might eventually pay the price -- when the cost in both life and
treasure will be even higher.

The use of weapons of mass destruction to kill civilians in Syria is
merely the preview for the main event, which, as soon as Iran's nuclear
project has been completed, will, in the name of Allah, be destruction
of entire nations, especially those with oil -- as the Saudis see better
than anyone.

For stability in the region, the Iranian bomb must be eliminated -- while it is still a chicken.

Ali Salim is a scholar based in the Middle East

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3988/iran-nuclear-chickenCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Can
it be more obvious? Thirteen Syrian rebel groups–including the most
important in Aleppo and Damascus–demand an Islamist state in Syria and
say they don’t care what the official rebel, U.S.-backed politicians
say.

What
about the U.S-backed Free Syrian Army? As the GLORIA Center’s Syria
expert Dr. Jonathan Spyer put it: “This is much of the Free Syrian
Army.”

The
Syrian rebel statement, distancing these militias from the FSA’s
leadership said, “These forces call on all military and civilian groups
to unite in a clear Islamic context that… is based on sharia (Islamic)
law, making it the sole source of legislation”. “The [Syrian] National
Coalition and the proposed government under Ahmad Tomeh [the Obama
Administration- supported “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood puppet who
wields little power] does not represent us, nor do we recognize it,”
said 13 of Syria’s most powerful Islamist rebel groups.

In
other words the rebels themselves deny they are “moderates”. Note that
when the United States tried to get the Syrian rebels to denounce
al-Qaida over a year ago they all refused. They would rather alienate
America than al-Qaida.

A
question that comes up is would not the people of Syria suffer? The
tragic truth is that they will suffer either way. Of course, there will
be ethnic massacres. First, the Sunni Muslims will be slain; then the
Christians, Druze, Kurds, Shi’ites, and Alawites will be massacred. How
many hundreds of refugees will Arab and Western countries absorb?

The
current civil war will not be the last war. There will be a civil war
between the victorious partners, at least the Brotherhood-types and
al-Qaida, and perhaps the Salafists. Then there will be a war between
the Sunni Islamists (al Qaida and Brotherhood-types) and the Kurds.
There has already been fighting between al-Qaida style organizations and
other Sunni Islamist rebels against the Kurds. Intra-Sunni Islamist rebel infighting is increasingly occurring. Al-Qaida groups have also fought one another and other rebel groups.

War
without end, amen. Syria will be turned into a smoking ruin for a
generation, perhaps 20 percent of the population will flee. This is no
war of liberation but a tragedy.

Will
America give hundreds of millions to the Syrian economy? Will it train
and reform the Syrian Islamist army? Will it advise the Brotherhood
against al-Qaida while ignoring ethnic massacres?

But
yes the greater strategic danger by an edge is Iran. Yet why would
America be expected to handle this danger, an America that is taking the
wrong side in Egypt? Better to keep Washington away from being a
rent-an-army for the Arab League in direct engagement in Syria.

That doesn’t mean we should want the regime to win. It is certainly in
U.S strategic interests for the rebels to prevail. But have no doubt
that when they do defeat the regime, the rebels will blame the United
States and Israel–though they opposed the regime and helped the rebel
side–as well as Iran, Russia, and Hizballah for their problems. They
will fight against peace, be willing to stage anti-American terrorism,
and be against U.S interests. This could be justified by the defeat for
Iran but don’t be over-enthusiastic.

When I went to Iran in 2008 (to attend and present a paper at the annual Mahdism conference there) one of the Muslim presenters spoke about the future Mahdiyah as a global state where Christians would be given the choice to convert to Islam and acknowledge the returned Twelfth Imam—or be put to death. Alas, as anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows, neither Shi`i nor Sunni (al-Shabab; Syrian jihadists; Pakistanis) Muslims are waiting for the Mahdi to persecute Christians. Indeed, despite being the world’s largest religion in number of adherents (2.2 billion), Christians are the world’s most-persecuted believers of any stripe—and mostly at the hands of followers of the world’s second-largest religion: eight of the top ten most dangerous countries for Christians are majority Muslim.

So it is indeed “open season on Christians.” Yet other than Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and, before he stepped down from the chair of St. Peter, Benedict XVI—no major world leader or organization has spoken up, much less fought for, Christians. Case in point: President Obama gave a long speech at the United Nations Tuesday and stated that the two greatest problems emanating from the Middle East are Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The chronic and toxic torment of his own co-religionists was never mentioned—except in passing reference to undesignated “terrorists” and “extremists” who engage in “sectarian conflict.”

Obama’s white-washing of Islamic violence—rooted, that is, in the Qur’an and in both the examples and hadiths (alleged sayings) of Muhammad, Islam’s founder—extended even to the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the president once again adduced a purported fatwa against nuclear weapons by Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei, which does not, in fact, exist.

Obama pointed out that “the U.N. was designed to prevent wars between states” but “increasingly we face the challenge of preventing slaughter within states” [emphases added]. His reference clearly was to Syria, but nary a presidential peep was uttered about equally-horrific venues where Christians are being butchered, such as Nigeria, Pakistan or Iraq; or where churches were burned, as in Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood; or where Christians are not even allowed to have churches, as in Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore, relative to Syria, Obama’s obsession with international treaties and norms is rather selective: violating the Geneva Convention rubrics on chemical weapons is reason to use military force; but breaching Geneva Convention genocide prohibitions—which include “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”—elicits no such outrage on the part of Obama, Sec of State Kerry or Director of Central Intelligence John Brennan when Christians are the victims. This despite the fact that a Sudanese Anglican bishop has written to Obama, asking him to help persecuted Christians in Sudan.

Thus, many otherwise-intelligent Americans reflexively disapprove of Christianity, yet give Islam a pass. But the why is not really the crux of the issue; rather, it is that Islam and Muslims have Western defenders and apologists, to go along with their own such entities, such as: the Organization of Islamic Cooperation; the Council on American-Islamic Relations; Iran; Saudi Arabia; neo-Ottoman Turkey, and, yes, non-state terrorist groups like al-Qa`ida [al-Qaeda, or AQ] and Somalia’s al-Shabaab (which killed only non-Muslims in its Kenyan mall attacks) and an unholy host of others. Christians, on the other hand, have one rather unsavory state advocate, Russia’s President; and, with Pope Francis, a defender who (at least next to his predecessor) appears lukewarm at best. (It’s been a long time since Catholic arms saved European Christendom at Lepanto and Vienna.)

Of course, we Christians have ourselves to blame, in many ways, for the lack of a united front: Evangelicals understand the Islamic threat but prefer pillorying the papacy to working with Catholics, and would rather convert Orthodox to Calvinism than save them from Muslims; Catholic bishops are often more enamored of Vatican II “can’t we all just get along” theology than speaking the Gospel truth to the Islamic world; and liberal American Protestants would rather grasp a live rattlesnake during Liturgical Dance than admit, ever, that Evangelicals could be right about anything—least of all Islam. Our Orthodox friends in Syria, Egypt and Iraq, as well as our orthodox African brothers and sisters of various denominations, meanwhile, face the brunt of Islamic jihad but are powerless to stop it. And if the world’s largest Christian power—for that is what the US is, its 310 million people being 76% Christian—won’t help them, who will?

In the name of charity, perhaps the appalling ignorance about Islam in Washington, DC, is more real than feigned. Yesterday, Fox News Channel’s Bill Hemmer interviewed former CIA and FBI analyst Philip Mudd on “America’s Newsroom” about Islamic terrorism in relation to the Nairobi attacks. Mudd stated categorically that “public opinion in the Muslim world does not support terrorism and jihad.” Really? Perhaps Mr. Mudd should stick to deconstructing Jane Eyre (he has a BA and MA in English literature) and leave the analysis of the Islamic world to those of us with more relevant, and frankly better, training.

But even someone hobbled by English degrees should be able to take a look at the Pew report “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society” and ascertain that large percentages of Muslims dosupport some rather unsavory, indeed atavistic, practices. For example, huge majorities in Malaysia, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, the Palestinian territories and Egypt support imposition of shari`a; at least 2/3 of Muslims in Malaysia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories and Egypt favor whippings or amputation of hands for thieves; over 80% of Pakistanis, Afghanis, Palestinians and Egyptians support stoning of adulterers, and almost the same percentages think “apostates” from Islam should be executed. Across all 39 countries surveyed, 28% of Muslims say suicide bombing is at least sometimes justified; this means, in real terms, that some 448 million Muslims support suicide bombing. Even in the US, 19% of American Muslims—some 475,000 people—think suicide bombings are occasionally justified.

Mr. Mudd has been a senior analyst for both the CIA and FBI, and as such his views have no doubt been influential in intelligence and policy-making circles for decades. There is no better example in the secular world of policy-makers “gathering around a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (II Timothy 4:3). The Obama Administration is not the only American one to heed the likes of Mudd, thus relying on pettifoggery and practicing wishful thinking as foreign policy—but it has sunk to new depths of willful ignorance regarding Islamic jihad and its mainly Christian targets, and in the process is aiding and abetting the violence perpetrated in the name of Allah against the followers of Jesus. Whether Obama does so as an obsequious dhimmi (subservient Christian under Islamic law), a knowing da`i (Islamic propagandist) or an oblivious dunce is the question.Timothy Furnish holds a PhD in Islamic History and is an
author, analyst, and consultant to the US military who specializes in
transnational Islamic movements, eschatology and Mahdism. His website
is www.mahdiwatch.org.Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/timothy-furnish/obama-dhimmi-or-dunce/Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Fars (Persepolis) was
the official capital of the Persian Empire, built in the time of Cyrus
the Great, around 560 B.C.E. A farce is also a comedy. Iranian President
Hasan Rouhani's speech at the U.N. was able to link the two.

The Iranian farce
enjoys a steady audience that takes it seriously. Even U.S. President
Barack Obama is changing his tone toward Iran. Obama is choosing, once
more, to give diplomacy a chance. And again -- just as he did five years
ago -- he made that peculiar link between the Palestinian issue and the
nuclear threat, even though reality has proven that the two are not
connected.

In his speech, Obama
instructed U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to pursue dialogue with
Iran. The foreign ministers of the six world powers are scheduled to
meet with the Iranian foreign minister on Thursday. This time, we will
not witness the impromptu handshake we saw between Secretary of State
Colin Powell and his Iranian counterpart at the General Assembly in 2001
-- this time the handshake will be official.

Iranian Foreign
Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif met with the foreign ministers of Italy,
Britain and the Netherlands on Wednesday, as well as with EU foreign
policy chief Catherine Ashton, who was very excited about the Iranian
minister's "energy and tenacity." This is the same Ashton who was
equally excited by Zarif's predecessor, Saeed Jalili, and who has been
heading the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the West since October
2009. The last meeting took place in April, in Kazakhstan. Only Borat
was missing to make the farce official. But the Americans are
enthusiastic.

Obama's speech at the
U.N. was less than exciting. Reality has proven to him and us both that
pretty words do not change the world. Obama, by the way, stated that he
does not believe that "America or any nation should determine who will
lead Syria." The Egyptian delegation to the General Assembly in New York
must have been sorry that he did not think the same about Egypt.

Obama has a far less
romantic view of the Middle East these days and he is hoping that Iran,
off all things, will keep him from being a lame duck until his second
term in office is over. Obama needs to show that he has accomplished
something -- just like Rouhani, who wishes to see the sanctions lifted.
It is no wonder that the Iranian courtship of the U.S. is working.

Iran has been given an
American line of diplomatic credit. Is it because Rouhani has admitted
that Tehran will continue to pursue its nuclear program? Is it because
just like his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he claims that the
nuclear program is peaceful?

American political commentator
Charles Krauthammer noted recently that in his Washington Post op-ed,
Rouhani stressed the "culture of peace" promoted by Iran -- the same
Iran that has an official "Death to America Day." The children of Iran
need not worry -- it does not look like the day off they get on that day
it will be voided any time soon. The ayatollahs' Iran will not part
with the "Great Satan" -- or with its nuclear program -- easily.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: International community must judge Iran by its actions, not its words • Netanyahu says Iranian President Hasan Rouhani's U.N. speech was "cynical and full of hypocrisy" • Netanyahu to depart for U.S. on Saturday night.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warns world to not be fooled by Iran

|

Photo credit: Kobi Gideon / GPO

"We will not be fooled by half-measures that merely provide a smokescreen for Iran's continual pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the world should not be fooled either," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday in a statement following U.S. President Barack Obama's address to the U.N. General Assembly.

"I appreciate President Obama's statement that 'Iran's conciliatory words will have to be matched by action that is transparent and verifiable,' and I look forward to discussing this with him in Washington next week," Netanyahu said.

"Iran thinks that soothing words and token actions will enable it to continue on its path to the bomb," Netanyahu continued. "Like North Korea before it, Iran will try to remove sanctions by offering cosmetic concessions, while preserving its ability to rapidly build a nuclear weapon at a time of its choosing."

Netanyahu also responded to Iranian President Hasan Rouhani's U.N. speech on Tuesday, calling it "cynical and full of hypocrisy."

"Rouhani spoke about human rights at a time when Iranian forces are participating in the slaughter of innocent civilians in Syria," Netanyahu said. "He condemned terrorism at a time when the Iranian regime carries out terrorism in dozens of countries worldwide. He spoke of a peaceful nuclear program at a time when the IAEA has established that the [Iranian] program has military characteristics, and when it’s plain to all that one of the world’s most oil-rich nations is not investing a fortune in ballistic missiles and underground nuclear facilities in order to produce electricity."

"It was not for nothing that his speech had no realistic offer to halt Iran’s nuclear program and contained no commitment to uphold U.N. Security Council resolutions," Netanyahu said. "This is exactly the Iranian plan -- to talk, and buy time, in order to advance Iran’s capacity to attain nuclear weapons."

"Rouhani knows this well -- he is proud of how he fooled the West ten years ago [as Iran's chief nuclear negotiator], when Iran was negotiating while simultaneously advancing its nuclear program," Netanyahu said. "The international community must judge Iran by its actions, not its words."

Regarding his decision to order Israel's U.N. delegation to not attend Rouhani's speech, Netanyahu said, "As the prime minister of Israel, the state of the Jewish people, I won't allow an Israeli delegation to be part of a cynical public relations show put on by a regime that denies the Holocaust and calls for our destruction."

Because of the Sukkot holiday and Shabbat, Netanyahu will only depart for the U.S. on Saturday night. He will address the U.N. on Tuesday, the final day of the General Assembly meeting.

Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon (Likud) said in response to Obama's speech, "If this is the wind now blowing in our direction from the White House, we should expect enormous pressure from [Obama] later."

Labor MK Isaac Herzog said, "Even without Obama, we must understand that the lack of a diplomatic solution between Israel and the Palestinians and the continued nuclearization of Iran are two problems that could endanger Israel."

Intelligence, International Relations and Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud) represented the government at the opening of the U.N. General Assembly meeting. Steinitz held meetings with a number of officials, including the Norwegian and Czech foreign ministers and Middle East Quartet envoy Tony Blair.

Following Rouhani's speech, Steinitz met with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. During the meeting, Steinitz emphasized that the mistakes made during past nuclear negotiations with North Korea should not be repeated with Iran.

Speaking to Ban, Steinitz said, "As a citizen of South Korea which is under a real nuclear threat, you understand better than us all the disastrous consequences of agreements based on gestures and illusions."

"North Korea acquired nuclear weapons despite two signed agreements that were celebrated enthusiastically by the entire world," Steinitz said.

Farrakhan
and his entourage attended a dinner party hosted by Iranian President
Hassan Rouhani on Tuesday night. Rouhani's dinner party was held on the
second floor of the One UN Hotel, where the Iranian delegation is
staying, and at the same time as President Obama's party at the Waldorf
Astoria just blocks away.The private dinner party was held just hours after Rouhani's speech to the general assembly.Farrakhan,
the fiery 80-year-old who has previously sidled up to the likes of
Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi, and his massive entourage and private
security detail were seen departing the hotel around 10 p.m. Tuesday.
Pedestrian traffic was stopped while the minister and his group piled
into various cars with lights and sirens and New Jersey license plates.Also
in attendance at Rouhani's party was German Deputy Foreign Minister
Peter Florin, who was elected president of the United Nations General
Assembly on Tuesday.Farrakhan made headlines during the General Assembly last year when he dined with Rouhani's predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.Farrakhan
is no stranger to controversy. He has been blasted for his
anti-Semitic remarks and has aligned himself with former Iranian
presidents and other controversial world leaders. In 2011, Farrakhan
blasted Obama, calling him a "murderer" in response to the death of
Qaddafi."We voted for our brother Barack, a beautiful human being with a sweet heart," Farrakhan said. "Now he's an assassin."Rouhani
doesn't appear to think any more of Obama, who extended an olive
branch to the rogue nation when he told the General Assembly "regime
change" in Iran is not the goal of the U.S., and urged peaceful talks
to diffuse Tehran's nuclear program. But Rouhani spurned Obama later,
refusing to shake his hand because there was "not enough time."

No doubt Rouhani had to toddle off to dinner, which prevented him from shaking the hand of the lightworker.

Doesn't
it sound like Farrakhan knows Obama pretty well? The two met at the
White House back in 2009, according to visitor logs, and he may have
been there another time with his family. Prior to that, no
self-respecting black politician could run in the state of Illinois
without Farrakhan's blessing. Whether the two met back then is unknown,
but it's not surprising that Obama would try and hide his connection to
such a radical, anti-Semitic, anti-American hater.

Farrakhan amd Rouhani: made for each other.Rick MoranSource: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/peas_in_a_pod_farrakhan_sups_with_rouhani.htmlCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.